fix: scan out of range

[chenkovsky]

if we scan _rowid or _rowaddr without other columns, an error will come up.

thread 'tokio-runtime-worker' panicked at rust/lance/src/dataset/[fragment.rs:1986](http://fragment.rs:1986/):18:
called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: InvalidInput { source: "Cannot slice from 0 with length 333275 given a selection of size 10", location: Location { file: "rust/lance-io/src/[lib.rs](http://lib.rs/)", line: 151, column: 27 } }
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
thread '<unnamed>' panicked at rust/lance/src/io/exec/[scan.rs:236](http://scan.rs:236/):40:
called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: JoinError::Panic(Id(13), "called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: InvalidInput { source: \"Cannot slice from 0 with length 333275 given a selection of size 10\", location: Location { file: \"rust/lance-io/src/[lib.rs](http://lib.rs/)\", line: 151, column: 27 } }", ...)
thread '<unnamed>' panicked at core/src/[panicking.rs:221](http://panicking.rs:221/):5:

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.83333% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.88%. Comparing base (45fde4c) to head (78391a2).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
rust/lance-io/src/lib.rs	62.50%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3339      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.84%   78.88%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         247      247              
  Lines       88281    88388     +107     
  Branches    88281    88388     +107     
==========================================
+ Hits        69603    69724     +121     
+ Misses      15786    15773      -13     
+ Partials     2892     2891       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	78.88% <95.83%> (+0.04%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[chenkovsky]

maybe we can skip creating vec

[wjones127]

Why return result? I don't see any error and you just unwrap() it later anyways.

[wjones127]

from_iter_values() is what you are looking for:

Suggested change

	Self::Range(r) => Ok(UInt32Array::from(Vec::from_iter(
	r.start as u32..r.end as u32,
	))),
	Self::Range(r) => Ok(UInt32Array::from_iter_values(
	r.start as u32..r.end as u32,
	)),